What, Me Worry?

By Michael Askounes

Reprinted from Michael's Place™, a column appearing in Gamer's Gazette, February 10, 2000.

So Much for my Writing Career ...

One of the good things about being a writer (in my case, I use the term loosely) is that one has the freedom to express oneself in a forum where they dictate the topic and terms. If I--as a hack--feel like writing about the effects of real-time strategy games on the Botswanian Desert Rat then, by golly, that's what I'm going to write about. This freedom is what makes column writing so much different (and more enjoyable) than other jobs where you are usually stuck performing tasks that are handed down to you from the "suits."

However, I am learning that there are a few unwritten rules that a gaming journalist must follow. They are as follows:

• All writers must use the phrase "gaming goodness" as much as absolutely possible, even though it's not really that funny.
• All writers must constantly moan and groan about how software pirates are destroying our industry. This works best if the column is written using the copy of Microsoft Word that the columnist "borrowed" from work, while listening to some illegally downloaded MP3's.
• All writers must write at least one column about how computer games do not add to violence in today's society, even though anyone with the IQ of a wet rutabaga can see that the opposite is in fact true.

Sure, it's only three rules, but they're rules nonetheless. Personally, I've definitely used up my quota of the phrase "gaming goodness," and have even shown some creativity by using derivative phrases such as "chock full o' gaming goodness," "gaming goodness and a bag of chips", "gaming goodness inside of the Barbi twins' underwear drawer" and "gaming goodness with a creamy nougat center." That's one rule down and two to go.

I was thinking about writing an article about how software piracy is good, but that's too difficult a task for me at this stage in my career. Instead, today's article is going to tackle the "violence in gaming" issue--I'm taking a noticeably different stance on this than that of my peers--a stance that could get me excommunicated from the gaming journalism community forever. In this article, I hope to show that violent games do affect the overall violence of our youth, and I will also touch upon why there's nothing we can (or should) do to prevent such from occurring!

It's Only a Flesh Wound

I've been playing computer games for almost 20 years and I can tell you that violence in games has been around that entire time. I remember a game called Bilestoad for the Apple ][e that pitted you and a friend in a one-on-one sword battle, where the only objective was to hack off as many of your opponent's limbs as possible. My friends and I though this was the coolest thing since The White Album, and spent many a night enthralled at the prospect of another limb-severing session of Bilestoad (complete with "monochrom-ey goodness" graphics). However, despite all the carnage that was available in games back then, I don't remember any US Senator or right-wing preacher getting up and complaining about it--probably because there weren't many reports of teenagers running around with swords hacking people's legs off.

Now times are different--the level of violence in computer games has risen sharply. Today's games are so much more real then they were back then. Case in point: The U.S. Marine Corps has used a modified version of Doom to train their soldiers on the art of killing. If the USMC in 1984 used "Bilestoad" to train their troops, the infantry would still be in Iraq waiting for the "amber and black monochrome" enemy to appear and we'd all be speaking Arabic.

Here's my point--you cannot take an already unstable person--especially a young and insecure person--stick them in front of hours and hours of lovingly crafted 3D renditions of hacking people's arms off with a chainsaw, and then expect them not to be affected whatsoever. That's not the way the human brain works. I can't help but think that sometimes games like Kingpin or Soldier of Fortune serve as nothing more than a "How-To Guide" for mentally troubled youths.

As a matter of fact, there was a story (this is true) out of South America not too long ago when some young dude barged into a crowded movie theater with a shotgun and shot up a bunch of moviegoers. When asked why he committed the crime, his reply was, "I wanted to see what it would be like to play Duke Nukem in real life." I don't know about you, but as a parent the fact that there is entertainment content out there that can have that level of an emotional effect on people scares the Hell out of me. I'm not saying we should implement censorship (more on that later), but I do think we should address the issue. Folk in positions of responsibility in the game industry (if there such a thing) need to use logic rather than just shouting things like "people have been violent ever since time began--our games have nothing to do with that!"

Given that it's obvious that violent content has a negative effect on people, why do developers and publishers continue to churn this stuff out? I'll tell you why--it sells! Most of the marketing folks who make these decisions are holed-up in their little gated communities and do not experience day-to-day how the violence that they push on our children affects society as a whole. All they care about is how much their annual bonus is going to be, and saying that a game has curse words and flying limbs in it usually pushes sales up significantly. If someone tried to sell the "suits" on a harmless game like PacMan today, I think the conversation would go something like this:

Developer: Hi, I got this great idea for a new game! See, you're this little cute yellow guy who runs around eating "pellets," all the while running from these cute little ghosts who try and stop you. It's called "Pac-Man"

Marketer: Hmmm ... sounds interesting. When you shoot a rocket at the ghosts, do their limbs fly off?

Developer: Errr ... the ghosts don't have limbs. When Pac-Man is powerful enough to attack the ghosts, they just disappear ...

Marketer: You mean, they disappear into a pool of their own blood while spewing entrails and screaming for their mothers?

Developer: Umm ... not exactly ...

Marketer: I love it! But can we call it "Gib-Man" instead? And also, I think instead of "ghosts," the enemies should be called "Crack Ho's." I'll get on the phone with "Snoop Doggy Dogg" regarding the soundtrack!

Developer: ...

2nd Marketer: Yeah! And we could put deer and squirrels and other defenseless animals in the game for "Gib Man" to murder. We'll call the game "Ted Nugent's Gib Man Hunter"! We'll get tons of shelf space in Wal-Mart and sell a boatload of copies!

And so on.

As you can see, there's apparently a theory amongst some marketers that games without killing simply don't sell. Even in games where the reality level isn't so heightened--such as real-time strategy games--developers still put in the requisite bloodstains and screams of the dying little pixelated soldiers. I understand that this says more about society as a whole than it does about the computer game industry, but the changes have to start somewhere--where is the unwritten rule that says the computer game industry has to have a negative effect on society? Don't developers and publishers want to be proud of the wares they're peddling?

Okay, now that we've ascertained how things really are, I'm sure you're waiting for me to suggest some sort of government regulation over the game industry. Well, keep waiting ... because I won't suggest such a course of action. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that there's nothing we can do about how violent games (and society) have become.

America the Beautiful?

So what do we do to curb the spread of violence in our culture? Do we invoke censorship laws on digital entertainment? Do we hold parents accountable for what their children do? Do we implement technology that will block any nudity, cursing, and violence and shield our children? No, I'm afraid none of these plans would work--and here's why.

If we go towards censorship, we begin to rely on other people to decide what is right and what is wrong. As a parent, I would prefer that burden fall on me rather than some hypocritical politician. Holding parents responsible for what their children do is simply downright unconstitutional--you cannot hold one person responsible for the crimes of another. Besides, once children reach a certain age, their peers have a far greater influence over them then do the parents--blaming parents can, at times, be a bit of a cop-out. Implementing some sort of violence-blocking technology on PC's and TV's may be a decent idea--but only if parents can set the levels themselves. If not, we again run into someone else deciding what is good for my children.

The only way our society will ever change is if the People are willing to openly and honestly discuss these problems. For instance, it may not be "hip" to suggest that rap songs with lyrics about killing cops and smacking "bitches" are detrimental to civilization, but someone needs to say it! Who cares if you offend a certain portion of our society? Game journalists (and the media as a whole) need to stop worrying about whether they sound "cool" or not, and start showing a little more responsibility. It's sad that the media controls the majority of the American population's mindset, but that's a fact. And with the world getting more and more connected each and every day, we need to start worrying about how our poisonous American culture may be affecting people in other parts of the planet.

And for the hardcore religious zealots and "conservatives" who would suggest a ban on this type of material I would say this--it is just as ignorant to try and forcefully control entertainment as it is to suggest that violent entertainment has no effect on our youths. In other words, throwing copies of Quake III and Kingpin into a bonfire at some rally is a complete waste of time. This sort of action results in your group looking like a bunch of pure idiots.

In short, I'm not really sure--given our current social climate--that much can be done to stem the spread of violence in the American culture, be it through computer games or otherwise. It's sort of funny--the very concept that we Americans hold dear (or should hold dear) is also the one element that keeps us from halting the moral decline in our country. And that concept is this--freedom. In a truly free society, people's hands are tied when they try and stop others from disseminating information or entertainment that may be thought of as offensive. You can't just declare something offensive and censor it--that's not how America works. Normally, this is a good thing--but lately I'm beginning to wonder ... How ironic is it that the freedom our grandfathers and ancestors once died to ensure is now holding us back from halting the morale free-fall our country finds itself in.

Normally, I smirk at irony--but not today ...